L Jefferson1, S Brealey2, H Handoll3, A Keding4, L Kottam5, I Sbizzera4, A Rangan6. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. 2. York Trials Unit, University of York, Lower Ground Floor, ARRC Building, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK stephen.brealey@york.ac.uk. 3. School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley TS1 3BA, UK. 4. York Trials Unit, University of York, Lower Ground Floor, ARRC Building, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. 5. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesborough, Tees Valley TS4 3BW, UK. 6. York Trials Unit, University of York, Lower Ground Floor, ARRC Building, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK and School of Health and Social Care, Middlesbrough, Tees Valley TS1 3BA, UK and South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Marton Road, Middlesborough TS4 3BW, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a 'think aloud' process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles. RESULTS: There were complete responses from 265 orthopaedic and trauma surgeons who treat patients with proximal humeral fractures. Around half (137) had changed practice to various extents because of PROFHER, by operating on fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures. A third (43) of the 128 respondents who had not changed practice were already managing patients non-operatively. Those who changed practice were more likely to be younger, work in a trauma unit rather than a major trauma centre, be specialist shoulder surgeons and treat fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures surgically. This group gave higher scores when assessing validity and applicability of PROFHER. In contrast, a quarter of the non-changers were critical, sometimes emphatically, of PROFHER. The strongest theme that emerged overall was the endorsement of evidence-based practice. CONCLUSION: PROFHER has had an impact on surgeons' clinical practice, both through changing it, and through underpinning existing non-operative practice. Although some respondents expressed reservations about the trial, evidence from such trials was found to be the most important influence on surgeons' decisions to change practice.Cite this article: L. Jefferson, S. Brealey, H. Handoll, A. Keding, L. Kottam, I. Sbizzera, A. Rangan. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons' clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:590-599. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170.
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a 'think aloud' process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles. RESULTS: There were complete responses from 265 orthopaedic and trauma surgeons who treat patients with proximal humeral fractures. Around half (137) had changed practice to various extents because of PROFHER, by operating on fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures. A third (43) of the 128 respondents who had not changed practice were already managing patients non-operatively. Those who changed practice were more likely to be younger, work in a trauma unit rather than a major trauma centre, be specialist shoulder surgeons and treat fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures surgically. This group gave higher scores when assessing validity and applicability of PROFHER. In contrast, a quarter of the non-changers were critical, sometimes emphatically, of PROFHER. The strongest theme that emerged overall was the endorsement of evidence-based practice. CONCLUSION: PROFHER has had an impact on surgeons' clinical practice, both through changing it, and through underpinning existing non-operative practice. Although some respondents expressed reservations about the trial, evidence from such trials was found to be the most important influence on surgeons' decisions to change practice.Cite this article: L. Jefferson, S. Brealey, H. Handoll, A. Keding, L. Kottam, I. Sbizzera, A. Rangan. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons' clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:590-599. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170.
Authors: Helen Handoll; Stephen Brealey; Amar Rangan; Ada Keding; Belen Corbacho; Laura Jefferson; Ling-Hsiang Chuang; Lorna Goodchild; Catherine Hewitt; David Torgerson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: B Corbacho; A Duarte; A Keding; H Handoll; L H Chuang; D Torgerson; S Brealey; L Jefferson; C Hewitt; A Rangan Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: John-Erik Bell; Brian C Leung; Kevin F Spratt; Ken J Koval; James D Weinstein; David C Goodman; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: B J F Dean; L D Jones; A J R Palmer; R D Macnair; P E Brewer; C Jayadev; A N Wheelton; D E J Ball; R S Nandra; R S Aujla; A E Sykes; A J Carr Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Suzanne Polinder; Gijs I T Iordens; Martien J M Panneman; Denise Eygendaal; Peter Patka; Dennis Den Hartog; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ada Keding; Helen Handoll; Stephen Brealey; Laura Jefferson; Catherine Hewitt; Belen Corbacho; David Torgerson; Amar Rangan Journal: Trials Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Martin Forster; Stephen Brealey; Stephen Chick; Ada Keding; Belen Corbacho; Andres Alban; Paolo Pertile; Amar Rangan Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 2.486